Court Hears 301 Forced Labor Case, Attorney Argues No Findings to Support Tariff

[ABS News Service/01.10.2026]

A three-judge panel at the Court of International Trade raised questions about arguments being made by both sides in a challenge to the Administration’s decision to impose sweeping Section 301 tariffs on multiple countries for allegedly failing to keep products made with forced labor out of their markets.

Small businesses and state governments challenging the tariffs argue that Section 301 requires country specific finding, which were not provided in the US Trade Representative Office’s report.

The judges repeatedly asked the attorney representing the small businesses, Pratik Shah, if he was simply asking for “more paper” rather than actually challenging USTR’s conclusions. They also questioned whether the fact that the member countries of the European Union are treated as a single entity undermines the argument that the statute requires country specific findings.

But they also had numerous questions for Justice Department attorney Eric Hamilton about whether the government had ignored more detailed statutory requirements that dealt specifically with forced labor, rather than relying on broader authority about unreasonable trade practices.

The plaintiffs urged the court to throw out the tariffs completely, although Mr. Shah indicated that the small businesses he represents would not object if the court limited its action to just the some two dozen countries that the companies import from, leaving tariffs in place on the remaining countries hit by the tariffs.

Mr. Hamilton called for the challenge to be dismissed. But in the event that the court opts to remand the matter back to USTR for additional data on how it reached its findings, the government attorney said he was confident that information could be provided.

The panel is expected to issue its ruling in the coming weeks.

The Administration imposed the Section 301 tariffs after the US Supreme Court ruled that the global tariffs he imposed using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act were illegal.

The government is still in the process of issuing refunds to companies that paid the IEEPA tariffs.